Jai Prakesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26951 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-590 Year-2019 Thana- MANER District- Patna ====================================================== Jai Prakesh Rai, S/o Late Ram Ekwal Rai, Resident of Village-Sherpur, P.S.- Maner, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr.Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e :
Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Maner P.S. Case No.590 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 387, 307, 302, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, which is pending in the court of Smt. Nutan Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur. There is an allegation against the petitioner of assaulting by firearms upon the cousin of the informant, namely, Upendra Narayan Rai.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26951 of 2020(6) dt.02-03-2021 2/2 prosecution case itself makes it clear that there is a land dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and that there is no basis for his implication. Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. They have referred to the materials in course of the investigation and submitted that the gun-shot injury alleged against the petitioner stands corroborated by the injury report. The petitioner has also three prior antecedents.
Considering the rival submissions, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The same is rejected.
This Court would expect that the petitioner's counsel would honour his undertaking in the instant proceedings regarding supply of the requisite court fee etc. within two weeks from the date he is called upon to do so by the office. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) PNM U T